Evil and Sane or Evil and Insane or Just Insane?

[Minor Axis]

A person with no record accumulates 4 guns, including an assault rifle and 6000 rounds of ammo legally, no record, heads into the local theater in Aurora, Colorado and starts shooting.

Is this person sane and evil or insane?

Do sane people do this? What does it take to exceed the boundaries of socially accepted behavior to be labeled insane?

I understand people who kill to achieve something, such as accumulate riches, get rid of a pesky spouse, or to get back at those who picked on you (Columbine).

But let's say you are hurting, hurting to such an extent that you are willing to give up on your life...and... make some other people, strangers suffer too. This is not rational is it? Is this sane or insane?

And finally, how do you deal with mass murderers and serial killers? Is death all they deserve? Although for years I have been anti-death penalty based mostly on the statistics regarding innocent people sentenced to death, I'm starting to feel that for no-doubt guilt assured, heinous crimes, death might be an option. As I said in the other thread, at this point, do we care if an individual finally understands that the evil deed they perpetrated was wrong? Or screw'm, send back to God for a redo? What if they are no-s*** mentally ill? Should this be considered in how to deal with them? My inclination is to say yes, but it might be simpler to just hold them responsible for their actions.

 

[Zorak]

I don't think there's a simple line between sane and insane. Nor is it something easy to specify, let alone diagnose. What is sanity, what is normality...

Interesting to see what the Norwegian courts classify Brehvik as.

 

[porterjack]

if being mentally unstable equals insane then so be it, this guy crossed a line recently, something triggered this, i gather he planned it, but had he been unstable years ago why wait till now, i suspect the pressures of school and the recent decision to drop out added to his instability, perhaps

in any event i don't go for good versus evil, that thought process is born of religious dogma and serves me no purpose

as for the death penalty, no way would that have deterred him, nor will it deter the next one - it would take his life and perhaps that might sit well with the victims families, but not with me

 

[porterjack]

Interesting to see what the Norwegian courts classify Brehvik as.

one year anniversary today i think

 

[HK]

as for the death penalty, no way would that have deterred him, nor will it deter the next one - it would take his life and perhaps that might sit well with the victims families, but not with me

In cases like this, I don't think the issue is whether it would be a deterrent. I wonder whether there's any point in the government paying for the rest of this man's life to keep him incarcerated. It's not like he's ever going to be released after killing all those people.

 

[redliner]

What is the point of havign a trial for him ? Why does he have to go to court ?

 

[porterjack]

In cases like this, I don't think the issue is whether it would be a deterrent. I wonder whether there's any point in the government paying for the rest of this man's life to keep him incarcerated. It's not like he's ever going to be released after killing all those people.

some say it is cheaper to incarcerate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2955269.../t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UAr5NmGe7aE

 

[HK]

Only because it takes so damn long for it to actually happen.


Sometimes I think it'd be better if people like that just took care of themselves (as some occasionally do) once their moment was over.

 

[TheLastTheory]

The line between insane and sane is already blurred enough, so its easier to not drive yourself insane by questioning others sanity. Besides, usually behind insane people is an insane logic that makes sense in a troublesome way, so logic isn't really a deciding factor. It all depends on personal opinion really, whats sane and what isn't is usually decided by an amount of people in this case a jury... I think I rambled off into a different topic here -_-

 

[AUFred]

To the original post. If he was so intent on dying he would not have worn a bullet-proof vest and protective gear. I think he was quite mentally stable to the point of how he pre-meditated his actions. The actions themselves were insane. This is a case where I do not look at the death penalty as a deterent as much as a proper response to the crime.

 

[Minor Axis]

if being mentally unstable equals insane then so be it, this guy crossed a line recently, something triggered this, i gather he planned it, but had he been unstable years ago why wait till now, i suspect the pressures of school and the recent decision to drop out added to his instability, perhaps

in any event i don't go for good versus evil, that thought process is born of religious dogma and serves me no purpose

as for the death penalty, no way would that have deterred him, nor will it deter the next one - it would take his life and perhaps that might sit well with the victims families, but not with me

I don't consider the death penalty a deterrent either. On the surface, throwing one's life away by making others suffer seems insane to me.

I don't think there's a simple line between sane and insane. Nor is it something easy to specify, let alone diagnose. What is sanity, what is normality...

Interesting to see what the Norwegian courts classify Brehvik as.

It will be interesting from to see how another country/culture views this.

What is the point of havign a trial for him ? Why does he have to go to court ?

Due process... Unless you'd like to see people strung up from the nearest tree as the norm?

The line between insane and sane is already blurred enough, so its easier to not drive yourself insane by questioning others sanity. Besides, usually behind insane people is an insane logic that makes sense in a troublesome way, so logic isn't really a deciding factor. It all depends on personal opinion really, whats sane and what isn't is usually decided by an amount of people in this case a jury... I think I rambled off into a different topic here -_-

Sane or insane is a standard that the law establishes, by means of a court, ultimately the jury, based on their prejudices in combination with the sales job the prosecution and defense make.

To the original post. If he was so intent on dying he would not have worn a bullet-proof vest and protective gear. I think he was quite mentally stable to the point of how he pre-meditated his actions. The actions themselves were insane. This is a case where I do not look at the death penalty as a deterent as much as a proper response to the crime.

I agree, however I'll clarify that pre-planning does not rule out insanity. You've heard of the "mad scientist" no?

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

To the original post. If he was so intent on dying he would not have worn a bullet-proof vest and protective gear. I think he was quite mentally stable to the point of how he pre-meditated his actions.

This is a rational and logical assessment. Killing him, on the other hand, is no different to what he did to his victims.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

A person with no record accumulates 4 guns, including an assault rifle and 6000 rounds of ammo legally, no record, heads into the local theater in Aurora, Colorado and starts shooting.

Is this person sane and evil or insane?

Do sane people do this? What does it take to exceed the boundaries of socially accepted behavior to be labeled insane?

Sanity has little or nothing to do with socially accepted boundaries.A truly insane person would not pick and choose which socially accepted boundaries they crossed, nor would they plan their crime over any length of time.

 

[redliner]

Due process... Unless you'd like to see people strung up from the nearest tree as the norm?

Nope I don't want to see that. I just think it is a waste of time if they admit to it. There is physical proof they were there. What is a point of a trial ? Lock them up and forget about them.

 

[Joe the meek]

Killing him, on the other hand, is no different to what he did to his victims.

You're absolutely correct.

I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent to anything.

I also don't believe in the old "an eye for an eye" philosophy.

However... nothing in our lives is promised, nor is anyone on this earth entitled to anything. Bad crap happens to good people all the day and each one of us must deal it.

This nut job intentionally went out, "loaded for bear" and was intent on killing as many people as he can. This coward didn't even have the balls to save everyone the time and money to put a bullet in his own head after the fact.

Life is not fair. I'm not for one for a walk out back and a bullet to the head after a trial (if found guilty), but there are always exceptions to the rules, and this nut job is definitely an exception.

 

[Minor Axis]

Sanity has little or nothing to do with socially accepted boundaries.A truly insane person would not pick and choose which socially accepted boundaries they crossed, nor would they plan their crime over any length of time.

It's not what they do. It is at what point society decides this person is insane, vs just a bad person. Regardless of the motivation, it seems like the decision to kill in a senseless way is the indicator of insanity, but is it really? In other words, is killing for advantage to alleviate a situation, like getting rid of your spouse, any different than killing strangers at a movie theater, ie, lashing out at everyone? Is it the act, the numbers, or what is accomplished in the mind of the perpetrator that makes this insanity?

Nope I don't want to see that. I just think it is a waste of time if they admit to it. There is physical proof they were there. What is a point of a trial ? Lock them up and forget about them.

You'd care if you were accused and innocent. There are other cases that are not air tight where innocent people have been incarcerated or executed.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

It's not what they do. It is at what point society decides this person is insane, vs just a bad person. Regardless of the motivation, it seems like the decision to kill in a senseless way is the indicator of insanity, but is it really? In other words, is killing for advantage to alleviate a situation, like getting rid of your spouse, any different than killing strangers at a movie theater, ie, lashing out at everyone? Is it the act, the numbers, or what is accomplished in the mind of the perpetrator that makes this insanity?

The legal definition of insanity

[h=2]in·san·i·ty[/h]   [in-san-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural in·san·i·ties.1...........



2.Law . such unsoundness of mind as frees one from legal responsibility, as for committing acrime, or as signals one's lack of legal capacity,as for entering into a contractual agreement.

I'd argue that this man's systematic approach to acquiring weapons and ammunition, his research and execution of how to manufacture improvised grenades and booby traps, his calculated attempt to arrange a diversion by luring his neighbours with loud music in an attempt to get them to trigger an explosion in his apartment, and his calculated decision to use smoke canisters to generate maximum cover and confusion, then disengage from his attack and surrender whilst wearing body armour would more than indicate that he was fully aware of what he was doing, what the potential hazards were, and how best to preserve his own skin. These are not the actions of a madman.


​

 

[Joe the meek]

I'd argue that this man's systematic approach to acquiring weapons and ammunition, his research and execution of how to manufacture improvised grenades and booby traps, his calculated attempt to arrange a diversion by luring his neighbours with loud music in an attempt to get them to trigger an explosion in his apartment, and his calculated decision to use smoke canisters to generate maximum cover and confusion, then disengage from his attack and surrender whilst wearing body armour would more than indicate that he was fully aware of what he was doing, what the potential hazards were, and how best to preserve his own skin. These are not the actions of a madman.

Yeah, and Hitler wasn't a madman:24:

Killing for the sake of killing has one part insanity anyway you look at it no matter what the reasoning of the killer is.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Yeah, and Hitler wasn't a madman:24:

Killing for the sake of killing has one part insanity anyway you look at it no matter what the reasoning of the killer is.

Oh dear...Godwin's Law proven so soon? We'll skip that one and go straight to the second argument. You've just argued that a significant proportion of recreational hunters and fishermen are insane.
Until the offender is cross-examined in a court of law, his motives remain a mystery.Doesn't automatically make him insane.

 

[Joe the meek]

Oh dear...Godwin's Law proven so soon? We'll skip that one and go straight to the second argument. You've just argued that a significant proportion of recreational hunters and fishermen are insane.

Oh dear, spent to much time in the sun do you?

If you don't eat what you kill and you kill for the sake of killing, then yes, you are a little of your rocker.

Since you're such a smart man, please quote the definition of insanity from the DSM manual.